RAW file format - does it yet support it or still no?

[JohnyJoe]

Does Agisoft Metashape finally support RAW file formats (either from Cannon, NEFFs from Nikon or some other RAW file formats)...?

Or is it still a NO (it does NOT support them)...?

Will it ever support them? Why not? Seems good to support it, you can skip the exporting from Lightroom to TIFF "inter-step" if you dont need to export TIFFs and just use (maybe a bit altered) RAWs...?

[tazzo]

RAW can't be directly used because many algorithms are needed for demosaicing, sharpening, etc.. I think it's better to leave all this stuff to Lightroom, C1, and other dedicated software and let Metashape focus on photogrammetric algorithms.

[olihar]

Does Agisoft Metashape finally support RAW file formats (either from Cannon, NEFFs from Nikon or some other RAW file formats)...?

Or is it still a NO (it does NOT support them)...?

Will it ever support them? Why not? Seems good to support it, you can skip the exporting from Lightroom to TIFF "inter-step" if you dont need to export TIFFs and just use (maybe a bit altered) RAWs...?

You do understand what RAW files are right?

You absolutely do not want to load RAW data into Metashape, You want to use a RAW converter to process the RAW data. Metashape is not a RAW converter.

[Landy]

I've been using raw files (DNG format) in Metashape for years now with no problem.  Whether it can read brand-specific formats like PEF or NEF I don't know, but I doubt it.
cheers
Bill

[JohnyJoe]

I've been using raw files (DNG format) in Metashape for years now with no problem.  Whether it can read brand-specific formats like PEF or NEF I don't know, but I doubt it.
cheers
Bill

ok that interesting... so metashape CAN  use raw formats (DNG), just not ALL raw formats (like NEF)... :-(

why not NEFF :-(?

[Alexey Pasumansky]

Hello JohnyJoe,

RAW formats from Canon, Nikon and Sony cameras are usually proprietary and may also differ depending on the camera model. So Metashape doesn't support them, as there is no open and standardized specification for those formats.

DNG is supported, but some custom color profiles may not be considered, when images are loaded to Metashape.

[Andreas1206]

Hello

A related question from my side: What are your experiences when working with raw (.dng) files? Do you see a clear improvement in quality compared to tiff or jpeg exports? I never noticed a clear difference in the mesh quality, only that the processing takes much longer with the raw files.

best regards, Andreas

[olihar]

Hello

A related question from my side: What are your experiences when working with raw (.dng) files? Do you see a clear improvement in quality compared to tiff or jpeg exports? I never noticed a clear difference in the mesh quality, only that the processing takes much longer with the raw files.

best regards, Andreas

I would not recommend using RAW files directly in metashape, use a dedicated RAW converter and add these converted images to Metashape, being tiffs or jpgs.

[Andreas1206]

Dear Alexey,

could you please give some insight on wheter the unprocessed raw information from the sensor (DNG files) can be of any advantage for Metashape? I assume the processing with raw files takes longer, because Metashape has to convert them before?

thank you and best regards

Andreas

[Alexey Pasumansky]

Hello Andreas,

Yes, using DNG files may take longer time, as debayering operation needs to be performed when the source image data needs to be used.

But as far as I know, some users work with DNG, when there's no time to convert the RAW data, for example, while in field, when the results should be obtained as soon as possible (for monitoring purposes or to understand, if any re-shooting is required).

[DayGeckoArt]

I've tried DNG files but Metashape doesn't read any of the processing information so you get very dull images. There doesn't seem to be an advantage because you can't use the greater dynamic range to adjust brightness etc. It would be great to cut Lightroom out of the workflow, and also to have a full project with raw files which can be tweaked in the future!

[JohnyJoe]

Well to add to my original question... So far i always worked with 8 bit (LZW or whatever compresion) TIFs... (converted from NEF raw files via Adobe Lightroom)
I tried 16 bit TIFs but didnt see any difference really (but i tried only few tests).

I run across people online who say that you should use only 16 bit TIFs (and not 8 bit TIFs), that you get superior results...

Is it really true...? My tests back then (although only few and im not sure i tests everything (like dense point cloud "quality", mesh "quality", texture "quality" etc.) back than i didnt see really any improvements or just TINY imporvement (when using 16 bits tifs) so i never used 16 bit tifs again, just sticked to using 8 bits...

Is 16 bits really that much better...? In what way...? More detailed dense point cloud? More detailed mesh? More detailed texture? Or just texture with more depth (allowing you to play with highlights and shadows in the texture even after its generated?)

[tazzo]

No improvements on the geometry from my tests with an A6400. May be useful if you want to do post processing on the texture, but I'll do it before the photogrammetry process.